Posted by Larry Zaidan on September 17, 2000 at 01:39:50:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seattle posted by Joe Baker on September 16, 2000 at 22:07:52:
Agreed, that in absence of advance negotiations, no residuals should be due to the musicians. I do, however, believe that it *IS* reasonable to negotiate for "back end" payments, based on the points that I have already made.
Based on reading your argument, I don't believe you are taking my point (whether I am right or not, is another issue!). In the case of burger flipping, and automobile manufacture, the owners of the business supply all of the tools of the trade; they are taking ALL of the financial risks, and should reap ALL of the financial benefits. If this model is followed, and the tuba manufacturer supplied you with use of the instrument (for free), AND was responsible for finding the work, then I think that you would not have a strong case for the individual musician receiving residuals.
As things are, however, the tuba manufacturer is only entitled to the purchase price of the instrument. The manufacturer relinquishes any rights to the earning potential of the horn when they accept the purchase price, and transfer ownership to you. Additionally, they do not accept any risk for finding the work, once you own the tuba.
Having said all of that, what ever a person negotiates for themselves, is fine.
My problem is with the point of view that some people seem to be expressing, namely, that musicians have no right to royalties from film recordings.